The Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15 case in 1968 was a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that scrutinized voting restrictions for school board elections in New York State. The law at issue only allowed individuals who owned or rented taxable property, parents with children enrolled in local public schools, and spouses of such persons to vote on school-related matters. William Kramer, a resident of the district but not fitting into any of these categories, challenged this statute as discriminatory and unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment after being denied his right to vote. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Kramer stating that if a state decides to grant certain citizens the right to vote while denying others based on their interests or affected status, it must be able to prove that its reasons are compelling enough so as not violate equal protection principles. The court found no sufficient justification for excluding other classes like non-parents from voting since they too have an interest and can be significantly impacted by decisions made about education policies within their community.

In the dissenting opinion for Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was an overreach of judicial power and a misinterpretation of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. He contended that it is not within the Court's purview to determine which classifications are or aren't relevant in determining voter eligibility; this should be left to legislative bodies who have more expertise in these matters. Furthermore, he asserted that there were rational grounds for limiting school district voting rights to those directly affected by school policies - namely property owners and parents with children attending local schools - as they bear financial responsibility through taxes and have a vested interest in educational decisions respectively. Thus, according to Harlan, such restrictions do not violate equal protection principles since they serve legitimate state interests.